Topic: In the ancient teachings that I study, the texts teach that there is a general systematic law of learning that everyone must go through in order to truly learn knowledge. I just thought that some people might find iinteresting, so I wanted to post it here for other members to consider.

THE LAW OF LEARNING

1.) You must have a sincere desire to understand the reality of that which you seek to understand.

2.) You must suspend any beliefs or preconceptions you may have about the subject of inquiry, at least temporarily. This allows you to arrive at "the point of not knowing" where the "vault of knowledge opens up." As long as you maintain a belief that you already know it, there is nothing for you to learn.

3.) You must incorporate activity which will allow you to experience the reality of the knowledge.

4.) You must experience the reality of the knowledge in order to truly learn, as opposed to experiencing the hope, wish, or desire of what the it is or could be.

"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."

I very much agree with these points, but would add one more. You must believe that you have the ability to learn it. That you can change your current mindset, because if you feel you cannot learn something, you will not learn something.

At 7/15/2011 3:38:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:that's very vague. For example, how would these laws of learning be incorporated If I wanted to learn physics, mathematics, or economics?

Reply: The same way, it is the basic steps to truly learning anything. What are you confused about? could you give me a specific example?

Example: Math

- You must truly have a desire to know the math.

- You must suspend any preconceived notion on how to do the math.

- You must incorporate activity which involves the math.

- You must personally experience and understand how the math works.

Side note: Most of the ancient teachings are a bit vague sometimes, it makes you really think about the true meaning. I think that the vagueness is partly intentional. To let your sincere desire of learning the knowledge pull you the rest of the way into the area of understanding.

"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."

At 7/15/2011 3:41:46 AM, innomen wrote:I very much agree with these points, but would add one more. You must believe that you have the ability to learn it. That you can change your current mindset, because if you feel you cannot learn something, you will not learn something.

Reply: You make a good point and I think it is the main purpose of teaching the law itself. If you learn and understand the law of learning, it gives you the tools and confidence to learn any knowledge afterwards.

"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."

At 7/15/2011 3:31:25 AM, Tiel wrote:1.) You must have a sincere desire to understand the reality of that which you seek to understand.

This is a very difficult requirement to meet in children as they could not possibly appreciate the value of learning without first being "taught" it (which, according to this, would require the valuing of learning). Considering that they are the group for whom it is most necessary to learn and indeed are biologically best suited for it, it seems counterproductive to set out a requirement that excludes them.

2.) You must suspend any beliefs or preconceptions you may have about the subject of inquiry, at least temporarily. This allows you to arrive at "the point of not knowing" where the "vault of knowledge opens up." As long as you maintain a belief that you already know it, there is nothing for you to learn.

This is highly problematic as the beliefs that go furthest to shape how you think are those you are least aware of (1). What's more you are limited by your teacher's assumptions and by the ingrained assumptions of the language you are learning in. That this is a criteria for knowledge only says to me that true knowledge is impossible.

3.) You must incorporate activity which will allow you to experience the reality of the knowledge.

4.) You must experience the reality of the knowledge in order to truly learn, as opposed to experiencing the hope, wish, or desire of what the it is or could be.

These seem, first of all, repetitive, second of all, to completely undermine the importance of symbols (i.e. language and numbers) which are meant to stand in place for experience. Since language is an indispensable tool of human interaction, this could be a fairly dangerous precedent.

At 7/15/2011 3:31:25 AM, Tiel wrote:1.) You must have a sincere desire to understand the reality of that which you seek to understand.

This is a very difficult requirement to meet in children as they could not possibly appreciate the value of learning without first being "taught" it (which, according to this, would require the valuing of learning). Considering that they are the group for whom it is most necessary to learn and indeed are biologically best suited for it, it seems counterproductive to set out a requirement that excludes them.

2.) You must suspend any beliefs or preconceptions you may have about the subject of inquiry, at least temporarily. This allows you to arrive at "the point of not knowing" where the "vault of knowledge opens up." As long as you maintain a belief that you already know it, there is nothing for you to learn.

This is highly problematic as the beliefs that go furthest to shape how you think are those you are least aware of (1). What's more you are limited by your teacher's assumptions and by the ingrained assumptions of the language you are learning in. That this is a criteria for knowledge only says to me that true knowledge is impossible.

3.) You must incorporate activity which will allow you to experience the reality of the knowledge.

4.) You must experience the reality of the knowledge in order to truly learn, as opposed to experiencing the hope, wish, or desire of what the it is or could be.

These seem, first of all, repetitive, second of all, to completely undermine the importance of symbols (i.e. language and numbers) which are meant to stand in place for experience. Since language is an indispensable tool of human interaction, this could be a fairly dangerous precedent.

Comment: You don't seem to grasp the basic meaning of the text my friend. Read it over a few more times. You aren't incorporating the first two principles in trying to understand the meaning of the law itself, which is blocking your ability to grasp the meaning of the knowledge. Keep reading it until you understand the law.

My perspective: It is the basic law of learning. It doesn't undermine anything, as symbols and language are part of the learning activity experience (principle 3). Also, it's not hard for children to follow, children naturally follow the law when the knowledge is something they are truly interested in learning (principle 1). Further, children do not usually have deep preconceived or biased notions about the knowledge they truly wish to learn, that is one of the reasons why they learn so well and make such good students.

Using the Law of Learning opens the faculties of your mind to truly absorb and understand the knowledge you wish to learn. I am sorry that you do not agree. Your learning ability will be greatly enhanced if you understand and apply the law in your personal education. If not, you will struggle to understand or learn anything outside your biased or preconceived notions of reality.

"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."

At 7/15/2011 3:31:25 AM, Tiel wrote:1.) You must have a sincere desire to understand the reality of that which you seek to understand.

This is a very difficult requirement to meet in children as they could not possibly appreciate the value of learning without first being "taught" it (which, according to this, would require the valuing of learning). Considering that they are the group for whom it is most necessary to learn and indeed are biologically best suited for it, it seems counterproductive to set out a requirement that excludes them.

This requirement is also dangerous. A child can fulfill this requirement and the other three as well. They can want to learn how to read, they can admit they know nothing about reading, you can even stick thm in front of a book and explain how the sounds correspond to the letters, but if they're dyslexic none of that will matter. If we hold these as being sufficient and basic to learning we can easily accuse the child of "just not wanting to learn" or "thinking he knows/setting himself up for failure". This is dangerous thinking and has been a roadblock for people with learning disabilities throughout the history of formal education. That is why, while these "laws" might be useful to consider, they cannot be basic/fundamental laws because they do not take everything into account.

2.) You must suspend any beliefs or preconceptions you may have about the subject of inquiry, at least temporarily. This allows you to arrive at "the point of not knowing" where the "vault of knowledge opens up." As long as you maintain a belief that you already know it, there is nothing for you to learn.

This is highly problematic as the beliefs that go furthest to shape how you think are those you are least aware of (1). What's more you are limited by your teacher's assumptions and by the ingrained assumptions of the language you are learning in. That this is a criteria for knowledge only says to me that true knowledge is impossible.

You will see below how this law goes against the very nature of learning. Still, you have not addressd the powerful psychological point that is the implicit assumptions in all that we do, even the translation of these laws from their orignal language to English.

3.) You must incorporate activity which will allow you to experience the reality of the knowledge.

4.) You must experience the reality of the knowledge in order to truly learn, as opposed to experiencing the hope, wish, or desire of what the it is or could be.

These seem, first of all, repetitive, second of all, to completely undermine the importance of symbols (i.e. language and numbers) which are meant to stand in place for experience. Since language is an indispensable tool of human interaction, this could be a fairly dangerous precedent.

I still cannot see how 3) is not included in 4). Either way, "the reality of the knowledge", for example, the experience of a disease is not something that is ever pursued by doctor's by actually contracting the disease. They have to be able to know what a patient is feeling in order to make and give medecie that treats those ailments, but of course they never contract the disease themselves. Still, we do say that doctors are taught about diseases and about cures, so where is the disconnect there?

Comment: You don't seem to grasp the basic meaning of the text my friend. Read it over a few more times. You aren't incorporating the first two principles in trying to understand the meaning of the law itself, which is blocking your ability to grasp the meaning of the knowledge.

If I have to adopt the principles of something in order to understand that thing than it is at best a circular argument. Besdes, by these laws own logic I shouldn't hold them a true in the pursuit of whether they are true.Even if we didn't take that into account, the second law means that in the study of epistemology we must hold no beliefs about it in xamining theories and so have no frame of reference to measure them by. Since epistemological knowledge extends to all knowledge, this arbitrary acceptance or rejection of those initial epistomological beliefs makes knowledge at best , at worst meaningless.

Keep reading it until you understand the law.

I think it would be better if you just explained to me what exactly I am missing.

My perspective: It is the basic law of learning. It doesn't undermine anything, as symbols and language are part of the learning activity experience (principle 3).

No symbols or language needs to be involved in putting together a bed. This is not part of the experience and yet, manufacturer's include instruction manuals made up entirely of words and symbols without any of the "experience" of the "reality" of putting togethera bed. Yet still people come to understand how to put the be together.

Also, it's not hard for children to follow, children naturally follow the law when the knowledge is something they are truly interested in learning (principle 1). Further, children do not usually have deep preconceived or biased notions about the knowledge they truly wish to learn, that is one of the reasons why they learn so well and make such good students.

It's also why they are so gullible. A child that meets all four laws may "learn" that there is a Santa Clause (assuming the experience is receiving presents under the christmas tree). In their own mind, because they want so sincerely to understand and because they have no bias of prior "knowledge" they fully accept the explanation that magic allows Santa Clause to get to every oy and girl in one night. Since most philosophers o education make a distinction between being deceived and learning, hardly think that these four laws, while useful can be considered sufficient on their own or fundamental in any way.

Using the Law of Learning opens the faculties of your mind to truly absorb and understand the knowledge you wish to learn. I am sorry that you do not agree. Your learning ability will be greatly enhanced if you understand and apply the law in your personal education. If not, you will struggle to understand or learn anything outside your biased or preconceived notions of reality.

It's funny that you should say this because I think if you stopped holding the preconception that these laws are tru you could understand my criticism of it much better.

At 7/15/2011 3:31:25 AM, Tiel wrote:1.) You must have a sincere desire to understand the reality of that which you seek to understand.

This is a very difficult requirement to meet in children as they could not possibly appreciate the value of learning without first being "taught" it (which, according to this, would require the valuing of learning). Considering that they are the group for whom it is most necessary to learn and indeed are biologically best suited for it, it seems counterproductive to set out a requirement that excludes them.

This requirement is also dangerous. A child can fulfill this requirement and the other three as well. They can want to learn how to read, they can admit they know nothing about reading, you can even stick thm in front of a book and explain how the sounds correspond to the letters, but if they're dyslexic none of that will matter. If we hold these as being sufficient and basic to learning we can easily accuse the child of "just not wanting to learn" or "thinking he knows/setting himself up for failure". This is dangerous thinking and has been a roadblock for people with learning disabilities throughout the history of formal education. That is why, while these "laws" might be useful to consider, they cannot be basic/fundamental laws because they do not take everything into account.

2.) You must suspend any beliefs or preconceptions you may have about the subject of inquiry, at least temporarily. This allows you to arrive at "the point of not knowing" where the "vault of knowledge opens up." As long as you maintain a belief that you already know it, there is nothing for you to learn.

This is highly problematic as the beliefs that go furthest to shape how you think are those you are least aware of (1). What's more you are limited by your teacher's assumptions and by the ingrained assumptions of the language you are learning in. That this is a criteria for knowledge only says to me that true knowledge is impossible.

You will see below how this law goes against the very nature of learning. Still, you have not addressd the powerful psychological point that is the implicit assumptions in all that we do, even the translation of these laws from their orignal language to English.

3.) You must incorporate activity which will allow you to experience the reality of the knowledge.

4.) You must experience the reality of the knowledge in order to truly learn, as opposed to experiencing the hope, wish, or desire of what the it is or could be.

These seem, first of all, repetitive, second of all, to completely undermine the importance of symbols (i.e. language and numbers) which are meant to stand in place for experience. Since language is an indispensable tool of human interaction, this could be a fairly dangerous precedent.

I still cannot see how 3) is not included in 4). Either way, "the reality of the knowledge", for example, the experience of a disease is not something that is ever pursued by doctor's by actually contracting the disease. They have to be able to know what a patient is feeling in order to make and give medecie that treats those ailments, but of course they never contract the disease themselves. Still, we do say that doctors are taught about diseases and about cures, so where is the disconnect there?

Comment: You don't seem to grasp the basic meaning of the text my friend. Read it over a few more times. You aren't incorporating the first two principles in trying to understand the meaning of the law itself, which is blocking your ability to grasp the meaning of the knowledge.

If I have to adopt the principles of something in order to understand that thing than it is at best a circular argument. Besdes, by these laws own logic I shouldn't hold them a true in the pursuit of whether they are true.Even if we didn't take that into account, the second law means that in the study of epistemology we must hold no beliefs about it in xamining theories and so have no frame of reference to measure them by. Since epistemological knowledge extends to all knowledge, this arbitrary acceptance or rejection of those initial epistomological beliefs makes knowledge at best , at worst meaningless.

Keep reading it until you understand the law.

I think it would be better if you just explained to me what exactly I am missing.

My perspective: It is the basic law of learning. It doesn't undermine anything, as symbols and language are part of the learning activity experience (principle 3).

No symbols or language needs to be involved in putting together a bed. This is not part of the experience and yet, manufacturer's include instruction manuals made up entirely of words and symbols without any of the "experience" of the "reality" of putting togethera bed. Yet still people come to understand how to put the be together.

Also, it's not hard for children to follow, children naturally follow the law when the knowledge is something they are truly interested in learning (principle 1). Further, children do not usually have deep preconceived or biased notions about the knowledge they truly wish to learn, that is one of the reasons why they learn so well and make such good students.

It's also why they are so gullible. A child that meets all four laws may "learn" that there is a Santa Clause (assuming the experience is receiving presents under the christmas tree). In their own mind, because they want so sincerely to understand and because they have no bias of prior "knowledge" they fully accept the explanation that magic allows Santa Clause to get to every oy and girl in one night. Since most philosophers o education make a distinction between being deceived and learning, hardly think that these four laws, while useful can be considered sufficient on their own or fundamental in any way.

Using the Law of Learning opens the faculties of your mind to truly absorb and understand the knowledge you wish to learn. I am sorry that you do not agree. Your learning ability will be greatly enhanced if you understand and apply the law in your personal education. If not, you will struggle to understand or learn anything outside your biased or preconceived notions of reality.

It's funny that you should say this because I think if you stopped holding the preconception that these laws are tru you could understand my criticism of it much better.

Reply: I think you misunderstand. I hold no preconception. The law is what it is. I don't try to change the law of gravity anymore than I try to change the law of learning.

"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."

Reply: I think you misunderstand. I hold no preconception. The law is what it is. I don't try to change the law of gravity anymore than I try to change the law of learning.

You are trying to understand something, namely, my argument (or at least I hope you are haha). My argument deals with the subject of learning. The Law of Learning is a preconceived notion you have about learning. Therefore, if you assert the Law of Learning is true, you should not believe it is true in order to understand my argument.

Reply: I think you misunderstand. I hold no preconception. The law is what it is. I don't try to change the law of gravity anymore than I try to change the law of learning.

You are trying to understand something, namely, my argument (or at least I hope you are haha). My argument deals with the subject of learning. The Law of Learning is a preconceived notion you have about learning. Therefore, if you assert the Law of Learning is true, you should not believe it is true in order to understand my argument.

Reply: I like your style of thought, as it hit deep philosophical notes; But I must state that I do not assert the law I have just learned through it's method that it is in itself is correct. For on careful reflection on everything that I have ever learned and consider true knowledge can be seen to follow the law's principles. This was both before and after I ever knew the law existed or that I was following any such law. Therefor it has proven itself worthy of being considered a "truth" in my reality and will remain so until further notice.

Conclusion: The first principle of the law prevents me from learning what you want to teach me.

"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."

Reply: I think you misunderstand. I hold no preconception. The law is what it is. I don't try to change the law of gravity anymore than I try to change the law of learning.

You are trying to understand something, namely, my argument (or at least I hope you are haha). My argument deals with the subject of learning. The Law of Learning is a preconceived notion you have about learning. Therefore, if you assert the Law of Learning is true, you should not believe it is true in order to understand my argument.

Reply: I like your style of thought, as it hit deep philosophical notes; But I must state that I do not assert the law I have just learned through it's method that it is in itself is correct. For on careful reflection on everything that I have ever learned and consider true knowledge can be seen to follow the law's principles. This was both before and after I ever knew the law existed or that I was following any such law. Therefor it has proven itself worthy of being considered a "truth" in my reality and will remain so until further notice.

Conclusion: The first principle of the law prevents me from learning what you want to teach me.

Fair enough. Having worked with developmentally disabled children and adults, I hav found that these principles can be useful, but I emplore you to look at their shortcomings and implications.

Reply: I think you misunderstand. I hold no preconception. The law is what it is. I don't try to change the law of gravity anymore than I try to change the law of learning.

You are trying to understand something, namely, my argument (or at least I hope you are haha). My argument deals with the subject of learning. The Law of Learning is a preconceived notion you have about learning. Therefore, if you assert the Law of Learning is true, you should not believe it is true in order to understand my argument.

Reply: I like your style of thought, as it hit deep philosophical notes; But I must state that I do not assert the law I have just learned through it's method that it is in itself is correct. For on careful reflection on everything that I have ever learned and consider true knowledge can be seen to follow the law's principles. This was both before and after I ever knew the law existed or that I was following any such law. Therefor it has proven itself worthy of being considered a "truth" in my reality and will remain so until further notice.

Conclusion: The first principle of the law prevents me from learning what you want to teach me.

Fair enough. Having worked with developmentally disabled children and adults, I hav found that these principles can be useful, but I emplore you to look at their shortcomings and implications.

Reply: I will consider your words wisely. Thank you for the great discussion.

Side note: Sorry for the typing errors and faulty word structure. My keyboard is going out and sometimes when I type fast in comes out looking jumbled.

"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."